Prominent Indian newspaper profiles famous American writer, critic, and anarchist

By SHELLEY WALIA

AN essay supporting the anarchist philosophy at the age of 10; hours spent at the bookshops on Manhattan's 4th Avenue engaged in anti-authoritarian polemics; and then a life time spent in analysing what ails international relations in the context of the widespread infringement of human rights and the numerous wrongs which fester our society. Indeed, Chomsky deserves the recent vote that ranks him above Umberto Eco or Howard Zinn as the most important intellectual today, an intellectual who is an effective counterweight and an independent critic of the State. As he writes in a famous essay "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship": "... access to power, shared ideology, professionalisation may or may not be deplorable in themselves, but there can be no doubt that they interact so as to pose a serious threat to the integrity of scholarship in fields that are struggling for intellectual content and are thus particularly susceptible to the workings of a kind of Gresham's law. What is more, the subversion of scholarship poses a threat to society at large."

AN essay supporting the anarchist philosophy at the age of 10; hours spent at the bookshops on Manhattan's 4th Avenue engaged in anti-authoritarian polemics; and then a life time spent in analysing what ails international relations in the context of the widespread infringement of human rights and the numerous wrongs which fester our society. Indeed, Chomsky deserves the recent vote that ranks him above Umberto Eco or Howard Zinn as the most important intellectual today, an intellectual who is an effective counterweight and an independent critic of the State. As he writes in a famous essay "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship": "... access to power, shared ideology, professionalisation may or may not be deplorable in themselves, but there can be no doubt that they interact so as to pose a serious threat to the integrity of scholarship in fields that are struggling for intellectual content and are thus particularly susceptible to the workings of a kind of Gresham's law. What is more, the subversion of scholarship poses a threat to society at large."

One of the repercussions of Chomsky's lifelong work is that human language and most behaviour are dependent on a huge, impulsive capacity for creativity, an "instinct for freedom" to use a term by Bakunin. This concept places Chomsky at the "frontier of psychology, philosophy and linguistics and square in the 18th-Century tradition of the Enlightenment — Rousseau, the Cartesians and other ferocious libertarians." Believing that the best way to maximise our genetically endowed freedom is through anarchism, Chomsky defines his worldview as "libertarian socialism." Such a brand of anarchism has both a historical force and stands for a deeply positive ideology that aims towards the absolute welfare of the public, though in the hands of the media and its controllers, this school of thought takes a rather destructive and a negative complexion.

War and patriotic fervour?

As an activist with an anti-fascist ideology, Chomsky has always been sceptical of the patriotic fervour behind wars. For this reason he stands against the treatment of the German prisoners of war and is deeply disturbed by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. The libertarian anarchist stance combined with a left-wing communism that he adopts under the influence of his linguistics teacher, Zellig S. Harris, lead to his attention to causes of social justice and the perceptible duplicity of the intellectuals. He sees his theory of Universal Grammar as a uniformity of human genetic inheritance, a uniting force that sees more similarities in the human race than conflicts arising out of ethnic affiliations or narrow provincialism. The essence of creativity is innate in all humans, which enables them to think and introspect. Language being inherently a creative entity, its original usage gives one a sense of freedom. Inequality and suffering in the world, therefore, have to be taken into consideration to finally eliminate division. A Marxist standpoint with class as the central tenet thus forms the essence of anarchist theory and practice. Chomsky adds to it the idea of the human linguistic abilities that have the power to resist any social oppression or straitjacketing. External authority cannot control the evolution of moral and intellectually rebellious culture. Wilhelm von Humboldt, the founder of the University of Berlin, and John Dewey, the philosopher, convinced Chomsky that political control is used by the State at the behest of the moneyed class. As argued by Adam Smith, it is all a self-promotion programme premeditated for the sole intention of profit at the cost of apathetic abuse of the masses. Chomsky remains equally impressed by other anarchist thinkers such as Emma Goldman, Pannekoek, Rudolph Rocker and Diego Abad de Santillan.

Tradition of anarchism

Chomsky's essays and interviews throw light on the 150 years tradition of anarchism that "has sought social and economic justice without the mediation of bosses, politicians or bureaucrats." Rather than lay out a plan for any single revolutionary moment that would bring about the intended social transformation, Chomsky, along with George Woodcock, emphasises the imperceptible changes that would occur under a protracted process that would counter capitalism. No sudden demise of capitalism is envisaged. As he emphatically maintains:

The record of anarchist ideas, and even more, of the inspiring struggles of the people who have sought to liberate themselves from oppression and domination, must be treasured and preserved, not as a means of freezing thought and conception in some new mold but as a basis for understanding of the social reality and committed work to change it. There is no reason to suppose that history is at an end, that the current structures of authority and domination are graven in stone. It would also be a great error to underestimate the power of social forces that will fight to maintain power and privilege.

This tradition of liberal thinking has its roots in the 18th-Century Enlightenment project, often employed negatively in Eurocentric imperial strategies, but in the hands of Descartes and Rousseau, turns into a philosophy of social justice that is passed on to contemporary thinkers like Chomsky. This school of thought is blatantly anti-capitalist with the underpinnings of a non-hierarchical social structure in which the workers are to be given the control of the means of production. Liberalism of the American New-Dealish brand of cut throat competition and corporate authoritarianism in the industrial sector is what the elite intellectuals take upon themselves to support, whereas the socialist anarchist stands polemically opposed to such hierarchical fascism so integral to corporate thinking which has full control of the policies of the government and is always opposed to trade unionism. The labour force is the foe and has to be constantly persuaded to switch sides on the fake trust that there is complete harmony in the workplace. This deception is cast by the media, by the flood of literature at all levels of special institutions such as schools, churches, television and cinema to make the workers believe in the "sincerity" and moral action of the State. The endeavour is to destroy all left-wing thinking and take society towards a conservative way of life. The façade of classlessness is cast over the public and many begin to believe that the State favours equal opportunities. They are not aware of the fact that income inequality is the highest in America. Interestingly, the corporations remain unscathed behind the scene, and it is the government that bears the brunt of criticism.

John McGilvray, Canadian philosopher, posits a pertinent question in his book on Chomsky: "Isn't anarchism the complete absence of any obligations towards others?" He then goes on to take the view of James Buchanan who says, "the ideal society is anarchy, in which no one man or group of men coerce another." But in the next breath he contradicts himself by saying that "any person's ideal situation is one that allows him full freedom of action and inhibits the behaviour of others so as to force adherence to his own desires. That is to say, each person seeks mastery over a world of slaves."

In the context of economic accumulation and domination this view is correct. But Chomsky disagrees:

In today's world, the goals of a committed anarchist should be to defend some state institutions from the attack against them, while trying at the same time to pry them open to more meaningful public participation— and ultimately, to dismantle them in a much more free society, if the appropriate circumstances can be achieved.

A type of "voluntary socialism"

Thus, according to Chomsky, anarchism is a type of "voluntary socialism" and is synonymous with "libertarian socialism." This is not found in capitalist societies where labour is subjected to coercion when it is not allowed to own the means of production or have any effective control over the productive activity. Freedom and creativity are two privileges of human beings so essential to their need; any unjust exercise of power leads to victimisation as well as psychological depression. To fulfill human nature and to see to it that human life thrives, it becomes essential to counter any form of oppression or control. This is the reason that Chomsky supports anarchosyndicalism, which according to Mcgilvray "is defensible as an empirical claim about the nature of a society in which human beings cannot just survive but thrive, by fulfilling their natures."

Chomsky, argues McGilvray, "sees anarchosyndicalism as a modification of the basic Enlightenment conception of the person as a free and responsible agent, a modification required to meet the challenge of private power. Empowering individuals by putting control back into their hands is the best way to meet this challenge and provide a meaningful form of freedom." Chomsky suggests that the anarchist way of putting an end to the imposition of control from the top is one step towards implementing a worker's control over the means of production. Thus anarchosyndicalism used as a critical practice refuses to put all initiatives and solutions in the hands of the technocrats or bureaucrats. Each individual, according to Chomsky, has the responsibility and the creative acumen to take control of his/her society. Therefore, the idea is not to overthrow governments but to take over the corporates so that they begin to work more in favour of the people. Anarchism, in favour of the people, involves the recognition of plurality and diversity, and difference of interests, ideas and opinions. This is the Cartesian underpinning to Chomsky's thought, an impulse towards the non-systematic and highly relative and flexible character of everything in society from organisations to individuals. He takes governance inherently as a communal activity not to be left simply in the hands of the specialists who focus too narrowly on their respective areas of interest, ignoring the larger well being of society. For instance, undesirable jobs like cleaning the sewerage system, or repairing the electrical wires during a snowstorm should necessarily be mechanised, and if there still exist more undesirable jobs, the community should share them. Another solution that Chomsky suggests is that people who do unpleasant jobs should be paid the highest, not the lowest.

The examination of the history of social and political dissent demonstrates that there have been "a number of otherwise loyal, upright, law-abiding citizens who believed that they had been driven by their conscience to break the law over certain specific issues." In fact, we are all dissidents at one time or another. Protest has to be allowed in society, as we live in a world that is constantly changing, and it is by protest that the laws are changed for a better future. As Vaclav Havel writes, "You do not become a `dissident' just because you decide one day to take up this most unusual career. You are thrown into it by your personal sense of responsibility, combined with a complex set of external circumstances. You are cast out of the existing structures and placed in a position of conflict with them. It begins as an attempt to do your work well, and ends with being branded an enemy of society." Under the overwhelming force of capitalism, bureaucracy and religious difference there are always the smouldering undercurrents of anarchism that, in the words of Rudolf Rocker, underscores "a definite trend in the historic development of mankind, which ... strives for the free, unhindered unfolding of all the individual and social forces in life."

From what I can see, Chomsky's anarchism is just a way of saying he's not a political leader but is an analyst. Anarchism has no practical, political program. It is a posture and an ethic, which is all good and well.

But let's stop pretending it's anything more than that. It's a mirage that's perfect for Chomsky, but an actual impediment to developing the current resistance to Bush and the hard right. It leads to "activist communities," properly called ghettos, and not a transformative movement beyond its adherents.

The evidence is in.

bah!

Dec 15, 2005 11:54AM EST

please

Anti-authoritarian? If that is so why did Chomsky support the Khmer Rouge, which is basically the most authoritarian and brutal regimes in world history?

When refugees came to America telling stories of the incredible horror in Cambodia he set out with his "analysis" to discredit them and legitimize Pol Pot.

I'll believe it when I see it. The Russian revolution of 1917 was a triumph that irreversibly changed the world. Anarchism found a bagel in a dumpster yesterday, but that doesn't measure up, sorry.

now, now, silly leon...

Dec 17, 2005 01:08AM EST

nacho

i'm no anarchist, but the hijacking of marxism by bolshevism has been one of the major setbacks to human liberation.

the "masses" are too dumb and lazy to free themselves, so we need a tiny group of middle-class know-it-alls, "the party," to free them, and then take control, basically replacing the capitalists with state bureaucrats. and we'll stop there, because central planning and state ownership is freedom, baby, even if marx never mentioned either.

read lenin and trotsky, they basically said this stuff repeatdly, obviously not in those exact words, but that's basically their program. there was no sudden "degeneration" when stalin came to power. what happened in the ussr is the inevitable consequence of vanguardist, state socialist ideology.

"...what? what happens to surplus value? worker self-management? no time for that 'ultra-left' stuff, and if you get any ideas, the red army will be sent in..."

Uh Leon...

Dec 17, 2005 01:40PM EST

Vigilante

The russian revolution was an anarchist one. You do no that right. It was the "what is to be doners" who ruined everything. They're not high in number anymore. Been crashing since 89.

two comments

Dec 17, 2005 03:16PM EST

some guy

First Marx always talked about party building and the communists as the vanguard of the working class so that has always been part of it since the beginning. Lenin just took it in a more authoritarian direction. Personally I like Marxism more than I like anarchism but the party building stuff definitely comes from Marx himself, can't really deny that is a central part of Marxism. After all who wrote the manifesto of the communist party? Here's a hint: Lenin wasn't even born yet...

As for the Russian revolution, well there were a lot of anarchists involved, yes. But you see the thing is if it wasn't for the organization of the Red Army the revolution would have been defeated really quickly. Armed cliques of peasants fighting for petti-bourgeois land rights is not going to defend the revolution in Russia. Also hate or love Stalin if he wasn't power the Russia most likely would have just been mowed down by the Nazis with ease.

Also without the Russian revolution surviving and being lead the way it was it never could have given support to anti-imperialist fighters the world over and the system of open imperialism would still be functioning well.

So was Leninism a failure? Yeah, pretty much. Do it do more positive things for the world than a bunch of guerilla peasant cliques running around with no plan whatsoever would have? Hell yes!

For anyone with some time...

Dec 20, 2005 08:49AM EST

adam finger

For anyone with time on their hands, perhaps you should read Hal Draper's "The Myth of Lenin’s 'Concept of The Party.'" I mentioned Draper in a post about socialism/anarchism, but he does a great job at dispelling some of the myths about Marxism and Leninism.

Workers, don't heed the petitbourgeois whinings of the fake-left capitulators to anti-communism. You have a right to form a party, you have a right to take state power, and it must be done.

oh, please

Dec 20, 2005 12:28PM EST

question authority

please

Tell me where I can find some information showing he supported the Khmer Rouge. I hear this argument against Chomsky a lot, but I have not heard it supported anywhere. I have however seen him complain about the US media covering one set of atrocities in Cambodia, while ignoring another going on at the same time in East Timor. This hardly means he supported the Khmer Rouge and if you can't understand the difference I would appreciate it if you stopped spreading disinformation about him until you got your facts straight. Have you read anything he wrote on East Timor and Cambodia? Have you seen manufacturing consent? He criticizes the US media for making Cambodia out to be a land of peace before Pol Pot, when we had been doing extensive bombing before he rose to power (some would argue that the ensuingt chaos aided the Khmer rise). Once again that does not mean he supported them. I hear similar arguments saying he supported the Soviet Union, when he just tried to point out that the media reports their atrocities while whitewashing the US's. I am guessing you either believe what you are saying because you are too simple-minded and can only see things in black and white, or you enjoy smearing someone you disagree with. Which is it?

(c) Independent Media Center. All content is free for reprint and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere,
for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted by author. IMC not for content (expand this). more...